token_price_path

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the data resolution (4-5 second), the feed start point (analysis, not bonding-curve), and the specific metrics (peak, drawdown, current). This exceeds what annotations provide and helps the agent understand the tool's temporal scope.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded. It starts with the cost indicator and then states the tool's output in a clear, short sentence, followed by a brief clarifying note about the feed's temporal scope. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema (though not shown in full), one parameter, and clear annotations. The description explains the temporal scope and metrics, but does not mention factors like data availability or edge cases (e.g., what if the token wasn't analyzed yet). For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'mint' is described as 'Solana token mint, base58.' The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states what the tool does: reports what the token did after being called, including peak, drawdown from peak, and current standing, at 4-5 second resolution. It distinguishes itself by specifying the feed starts at analysis and excludes the bonding-curve phase, which differentiates it from other token inspection tools in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (to get token price action after analysis), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_token, inspect_token, or token_report. The distinction from the bonding-curve phase is noted, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.